Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 81, Issue 9–10, pp 610–626 | Cite as

Presenting Their Gendered Selves? How Women and Men Describe Who They Are, What They Have Done, and Why They Want the Job in Their Written Applications

  • Jessi StreibEmail author
  • Jane Rochmes
  • Felicia Arriaga
  • Carlos Tavares
  • Emi Weed
Original Article

Abstract

Occupational segregation is due, at least in part, to differences in what jobs women and men apply to and how they are evaluated. However, we know little about one mechanism that may relate to employers’ evaluations and, therefore, to occupational segregation: how applicants present themselves to employers. Theories of gender presentation offer competing predictions of how applicants present themselves to employers and empirical studies have not fully examined the issue. We address this theoretical ambiguity and empirical gap by drawing upon 1124 randomly selected applications that U.S. women and men used to apply for the same high-status job. After conducting a content analysis, we found that women and men present themselves similarly in terms of why they want the job and what experiences they have, but differently in terms of who they are and what information they divulge. We conclude that different aspects of applications correspond to different theories of gender presentation, but that most of the evidence supports a perspective of minimal gender differences. The present study implies that one way to combat occupational segregation that occurs due to employers’ essentialist beliefs is to point them to how women and men actually present themselves in their applications.

Keywords

Gender gap Gender equality Work Job applications Self-presentation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Teach for America for supporting this work and Lotus Seeley for her helpful comments.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

We do not have any conflicts of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants

We have received IRB approval to conduct this research.

Informed Consent

We have a Data Use Agreement with Teach for America.

Supplementary material

11199_2019_1016_MOESM1_ESM.docx (69 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 69 kb)

References

  1. Anker, R. (1997). Theories of occupational segregation. International Labour Review, 136, 315–339 Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/intlr136&div=31&id=&page=.Google Scholar
  2. Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2014). Aspiring adults adrift: Tentative transitions of college graduates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226197142.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brockenbrough, E. (2018). Black men teaching in urban schools: Reassessing black masculinity. New York City: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315696997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, L. (2003). Girlfighting: Betrayal and rejection among girls. New York: New York University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.173_3.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cann, C. (2015). What school movies and TFA teach us about who should teach urban youth: Dominant narratives as public pedagogy. Urban Education, 50, 288–315.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913507458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves: Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 924–976.  https://doi.org/10.1086/595942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charles, M., & Grusky, D. (2005). Occupational ghettos: The worldwide segregation of men and women. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009430610603500313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 551–558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-M.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, M. (2000). Being the “go-to guy”: Fatherhood, masculinity, and the organization of work in Silicon Valley. Qualitative Sociology, 23, 379–405.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005522707921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cross, S., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.122.1.5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Deutsch, F. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, 21, 106–127.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206293577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.108.2.233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagly, A., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24, 149–166.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210361475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erola, J., Jalonen, S., & Lehti, H. (2016). Parental education, class and income over early life course and children’s achievement. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 44, 33–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2016.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foschi, M., & Valenzuela, J. (2008). Selecting job applications: Effects from gender, self-presentation, and decision type. Social Science Research, 37, 1022–1038.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman, R., & McEhlinny, B. (1996). Language and gender. In S. L. McKay & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 218–280). New York: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692849-013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gorman, E. (2005). Gender stereotypes, same-gender preferences, and organizational variation in the hiring of women: Evidence from law firms. American Sociological Review, 70, 702–728.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guadagno, R., & Cialdini, R. (2007). Gender differences in impression management in organizations: A qualitative literature review. Sex Roles, 56, 483–494.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9187-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gwet, K. (2008). Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 29–48.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000711006X126600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gwet, K. (2014). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters (4th ed.). Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics, LLC. http://www.agreestat.com/book4/9780970806284_prelim_chapter1.pdf
  23. Heilman, M. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hodson, R. (1999). Analyzing documentary accounts. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hyde, J. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218533.n311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. James, C. (2011, June 7). 5,100 new Teach for America teachers join efforts to expand educational opportunity nationwide. Retrieved from https://www.teachforamerica.org/press-room/press-releases/2014/5100-new-teach-america-teachers-join-efforts-expand-educational.
  27. James, C. (2012, June 19). Teach for America to bring a record 10,000 teachers to the nation’s highest-need classrooms in 2012. Retrieved from https://www.teachforamerica.org/press-room/press-releases/2014/teach-america-bring-record-10000-teachers-nations-highest-need.
  28. Kane, E. (2006). “No way my boys are going to be like that!” parents’ responses to children’s gender non-conformity. Gender & Society, 20, 149–176.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205284276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klein, R. (2015, August 11). Teach for America sees another big drop in accepted corps members. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/teach-for-america-applications_us_55c918d5e4b0f1cbf1e60ec6.
  30. Koch, A., D’Mello, S., & Sackett, P. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 128–161.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036734.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Koenig, A., Eagly, A., Mitchell, A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642.  https://doi.org/10.1037/e617292010-001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lueptow, L., Garovich-Szabo, L., & Lueptow, M. (2001). Social change and persistent sex typing: 1974-1997. Social Forces, 80, 1–36.  https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moore, M. (2011). Invisible families: Gay identities, relationships and motherhood among black women. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  34. Moss-Racusin, C., Dovidio, J., Brescoll, V., Graham, M., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 16474–16479.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. National Center of Education Statistics (2016). Digest of educational statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/index.asp.
  36. Panno, A., Donati, M., Milioni, M., Chiesi, F., & Caterina, P. (2018). Why women take fewer risk than men do: The mediating role of state anxiety. Sex Roles, 78, 286–294.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0781-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petersen, T., & Morgan, L. (1995). Separate and unequal: Occupation-establishment sex segregation and the gender wage gap. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 329–365.  https://doi.org/10.1086/230727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pyke, K., & Johnson, D. (2003). Asian American women and racialized femininities: “Doing” gender across cultural worlds. Gender & Society, 17, 33–53.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243202238977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Riach, P., & Rich, J. (2002). Field experiments of discrimination in the market place. The Economic Journal, 112, F480–F518.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ridgeway, C. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62, 218–235.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2657301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ridgeway, C. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender & Society, 23, 145–160.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755776.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ridgeway, C., & Correll, S. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18, 510–531.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ridgeway, C., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191–216.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Risman, B. (2009). From doing to undoing: Gender as we know it. Gender & Society, 23, 81–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243208326874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rivera, L. (2015). Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400880744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rivera, L., & Tilcsik, A. (2017). Class advantage, commitment penalty: The interplay of social class and gender in an elite labor market. American Sociological Review, 81, 1097–1131.  https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ywp93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seidler, V. (1989). Rediscovering masculinity: Reason, language and sexuality. New York: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203392669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sharone, O. (2013). Flawed system/flawed self: Job searching and unemployment experiences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sheppard, L. (2018). Gender differences in leadership aspirations and job and life attribute preferences among U.S. undergraduate students. Sex Roles. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0890-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simon, R., & Nath, L. (2004). Gender and emotion in the U.S.: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? American Journal of Sociology, 109, 1137–1176.  https://doi.org/10.1086/382111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spence, J., & Buckner, C. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes: What do they signify? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01021.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strough, J., Pickard Leszczynski, J., Neely, T., Flinn, J., & Margrett, J. (2007). From adolescence to later adulthood: Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny in six age groups. Sex Roles, 57, 385–396.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9282-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sunderland, J. (2006). Language and gender. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Twenge, J. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931–1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133–145.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.1.133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Tyler, J., & McCullough, J. (2009). Violating perspective stereotypes on job resumes: A self-presentational approach. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 272–287.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909341412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Von Baeyer, C., Sherk, D., & Zanna, M. (1981). Impression management in the job interview: When the female applicant meets the male (chauvinist) interviewer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 45–51.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728171008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sociology, Social Work & AnthropologyChristopher Newport UniversityNewport NewsUSA
  3. 3.Department of SociologyAppalachian State UniversityBooneUSA
  4. 4.Department of Anthropology and SociologyLafayette CollegeEastonUSA

Personalised recommendations